US v. Roberto Vera-Rocha, No. 08-4223 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4223 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ROBERTO VERA-ROCHA, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:07-cr-00024-F-1) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: March 5, 2009 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Roberto illegally Vera-Rocha reentering convicted of an the pleaded United aggravated Rocha to thirty-seven States felony, § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). guilty in to one after violation count having of 8 of been U.S.C. The district court sentenced Vera- months timely noted his appeal. imprisonment, and Vera-Rocha On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We affirm the judgment of the district court. We have reviewed the record and determine that the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting Vera-Rocha s guilty plea and determined his plea was knowing and voluntary. The district court informed Vera-Rocha of his right to plead not guilty, to have his case tried by a jury, to have the assistance evidence present of offered evidence counsel by and the during a Government, compel the trial, to presence not of to challenge testify, and witnesses. any to The district court addressed Vera-Rocha personally and informed him that he would be subject to a charge of perjury if he testified falsely during his hearing. The district court also informed Vera-Rocha of the maximum possible penalties for the charge to Vera-Rocha was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief. He has not filed a brief. 2 which he was pleading guilty and determined that Vera-Rocha was pleading guilty freely and voluntarily. Accordingly, the record reflects the district court complied with Rule 11 in accepting Vera-Rocha s guilty plea. Additionally, Following United district court sentencing. range. Vera-Rocha s States must sentence v. Booker, engage in a 543 U.S. was 220 multi-step reasonable. (2005), process a at First, it must calculate the appropriate Guidelines It must then consider the resulting range in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006), and determine an appropriate sentence. Appellate review of a district court s imposition of a sentence is for abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The appellate court must first ensure that the district court committed no procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence - including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 597. If there are no procedural errors, the appellate court then considers the substantive reasonableness of the sentence. 3 Id. A substantive reasonableness review entails taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any variance from the Guidelines range. 473 (quotations and citation omitted). Pauley, 511 F.3d at Even if the reviewing court would have reached a different sentencing result on its own, this fact alone is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court. to conclude Id. at 474. that the Our review of the record leads us district court committed no procedural error in determining Vera-Rocha s sentence. Additionally, Vera-Rocha s sentence was substantively reasonable. Vera-Rocha s sentence of thirty-seven months imprisonment fell within his advisory Guidelines range and the statutory maximum. This court may presume a sentence within an advisory Guidelines range is reasonable. 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007). rebut that presumption of Rita v. United States, There is nothing in the record to reasonableness in this case. Accordingly, Vera-Rocha s sentence was reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Vera-Rocha s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Vera-Rocha, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further filed, review. but If counsel Vera-Rocha believes requests that 4 such that a a petition petition would be be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Vera-Rocha. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
